Another survey on Cell phones, driving & accident frequency
Forum Mobility Networks : Sprint PCS - Another survey on Cell phones, driving & accident frequency
Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)
On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 20:10:32 GMT, "Bob Smith"
<usirsclt_No_Spam_@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>"Paul Miner" <pminer@elrancho.invalid> wrote in message
>news:boq8d153o8tdhp377kptru2mrnsm1c6kkn@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 20:08:27 GMT, "Bob Smith"
>> <usirsclt_No_Spam_@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>> >As an agent, I subscribe to a daily report issued & emailed to yours
>truly
>> >on news on the insurance industry.
>> >
>> >Thought this might be of interest to those folks who insist on driving
>and
>> >talking on their cell phone at the same time
>> >
>> >http://tinyurl.com/7rxgq
>> >
>> >Bob
>>
>> I'd put a lot more faith in this study:
>> 1. if it weren't published by the Insurance Journal (possible axe to
>> grind), and
>> 2. if I didn't work in the cell phone industry (also possible axe to
>> grind). <g>
>>
>> --
>> Paul Miner
>
>The study was put together by the Insurance Institute For Highway Safety,
>which is a well respected organization. http://www.iihs.org/
Well-respected within certain circles, yes. I wouldn't call them
objective, though.
>So what if it was published in the Insurance Journal? Don't you think that
>the insurance industry want to reduce the percentage of 1st party physical
>damage claims, 3rd party physical damage & bodily injury claims, 1st party
>med pay claims and so on?
I think the real question is why is the insurance industry as vocal as
they are about cellphone use when other distractions have been around
for much longer? And why, when a study is published showing that
cellphone use does not contribute more than its share of accidents,
does the insurance industry either ignore it or flat out dismiss it? I
just think it's obvious there's an agenda there, but this isn't the
group to discuss it. I only wanted to answer your question. 
>As previously mentioned, I've been involved in a few accidents (the only
>accidents I've had), and from personal experience, I would have much rather
>not had those accidents.
Most of us would probably say we would much rather not have had the
accidents we've had. ;-)
--
Paul Miner
Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)
In article <%qVAe.21886$eM6.20529@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
"Bob Smith" <usirsclt_No_Spam_@earthlink.net> writes:
[snip]
> Thought this might be of interest to those folks who insist on driving and
> talking on their cell phone at the same time
>
> http://tinyurl.com/7rxgq
Not really. I've been driving with communications in the car, *and*
using them while driving, for... hmmm... <counting...> um... looks
like about... ah... 40 years. Since long, *long* before cellular
technology was even a gleam in anybody's eye. I have never *once*
come even *close* to causing an accident, or failed to avoid an
impending collision, whilst doing so. Then again: Somehow I seem to
be able to treat the communications device at a much lower priority
than my driving responsibility.
There's the key word: "Responsibility." What a concept, eh?
The insurance industry... I imagine some day it'll have managed to
eliminate every potentially unsafe behaviour there is. Then they'll
have to start paying out on people dying from boredom 
.
--
Jim Seymour | "There is no expedient to which a man will not
jseymour@LinxNet.com | go to avoid the labor of thinking."
http://jimsun.LinxNet.com | - Thomas A. Edison
Please mind
You are about to answer a thread that has been inactive for more than 6 months.
If you still wish to proceed, please ensure that your posting is original and does not duplicate or overlap any prior responses to this thread.
